I enjoy talking about the garden of Eden as the passage of scripture contains so much information that often goes unnoticed. The inspiration for this post comes from the website– Age of Rocks and the first question to be addressed here comes from an article that website has on the Garden of Eden
http://ageofrocks.org/2014/09/24/four-rivers-one-problem-where-in-the-world-was-the-garden-of-eden/
#1. Four rivers, one problem: Where in the world was the garden of Eden.
The simplest and best answer to this question is– we do not know. It is actually a bit foolish to use the present day Tigris and Euphrates rivers as markers for a garden long destroyed by a flood and whose only geographical points were a name of a territory and the names of 4 rivers. What we know about Eden is only what is recorded in the Bible
8 The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed
THis is all we have concerning Eden. We know it is an area bigger than the garden and it was towards the east. Now the directional marker depends upon where Moses was when he was writing down the information from God and if he was using his location point or not. What we also know is that the name Eden is not the name for the garden which means that when we get to this passage of information
10 Now a river [g]flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four [h]rivers.
we know that the garden was most likely not the source of the main river. It was the place where the river divided into four parts. where the source actually was, there is no indication nor clues. To find the location of the garden one must first look for the territory of Eden and without any pre-flood geographical records or any material left by Noah or his family we are out of luck in that search. But this is not a problem for the believer because our faith doesn’t depend upon physical evidence to prove the existence of something god said existed.
Our faith is built upon taking God at his word and believing him. God said there was a territory called Eden, that there was a garden in it and one river divided into four parts then that is what existed before the flood.That is why Christianity is called a faith. The members of Christianity believe God using faith that he will not lie to us. We do not doubt his word nor demand physical evidence to prove what he has said as true.
#2. The respective watersheds of the Tigris/Euphrates and Nile rivers are separated by hundreds of miles, and these rivers are fed by completely different mountain ranges. Even allowing the most generously odd behavior of the rivers over time, we could never pretend that all were once connected, as Genesis 2 seems to imply
It really isn’t wise to use modern geographical points to link up to pre-flood locations. as you can see by that quote the modern Tigris and Euphrates do not share the same source for their waters, and are vastly separated from the source for the Nile river.
The Tigris runs from Lake Hazar, in the Taurus Mountains, in Turkey
&
The Euphrates is formed from the Karasu and the Murat rivers in the high Armenian plateau, runs through the Taurus Mountains, crosses into Syria at Carchemish (http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/neareast/ss/052909Mesopotamia.htm)
But even though their sources may be close to one another, we still cannot depend upon their location as a clue to the location of Eden and its garden. We are not given any directional markers for the 4 rivers thus we do not know if the pre-flood Tigris or Euphrates actually flowed to the south or not. Much like Eden, we do not know where Cush lay in ancient times. We do not have its boundaries at all. So using modern named rivers or nations won’t help us identify where Eden lay when it existed.
Then we need to be careful because we do not know if Noah and his family spent their time naming rivers, lakes or geographical areas. It is possible that as their descendants multiplied and spread out, that they named rivers they came across after the ones Noah and his family mentioned existed before the flood. The newly named areas and rivers could be hundreds of miles away from the original ones.
#3. In short, the Garden of Eden was portrayed as the source of life to all the Earth.
This is just not true. God is portrayed as the source of all life on Earth not the garden of Eden.. The garden was made to be the home for Adam and Eve and it wasn’t until the first couple were evicted did they begin to have children. The garden of Eden was the source for the original sin as well BUT it was never portrayed as the source of life.
The secular world and many misguided believers want to know the locations of different biblical regions and cities.It is a wasted effort to look for pre-flood cities, gardens and territories as all of those were destroyed and their names,locations, their size are all lost to history and the flood. The key is, believers need to focus on the real lesson of these pre-flood accounts. God created man, God planted the garden, God punishes sin, and man sinned not God, among other important lessons.
The location of Eden and its garden are not on the list of things to learn. They are gone. Believers just need to use faith and believe God when he talks about that part of life. He won’t lie to us so we do not need to waste time and money searching for things that no longer exist.
The second part of this post again comes from the Age of Rocks website and its link is below:
The question the article asks is quite good:
#1. Can the biblical flood explain the ice age? A broken theory in hot water.
There are two points to discuss in answer to that question. First, I do not believe there was such a thing as an ice age. That is a secular theory constructed to explain the many different glaciers still in existence when the modern world took over. There really is no way to verify if an actual ice age took place or when it was around. With no ancient historical records extant explaining the origins of the glaciers, the modern scientist can only speculate on the details.
Second, what really explains the existence of the glaciers is Noah’s flood. That is the only credible source for that amount of water to be locked into certain regions. The glaciers tell us that not all of the water from the flood disappeared. We know this to be true because we keep finding sunken cities around the world. These cities are far enough from modern shores to thwart any rising ocean water theory that the secular world may champion. We believers can speculate that a lot of the waters did not go away because the earth’s core can only hold so much material, then it has to burst out somewhere.
Then we find no evidence of any burst in the earth’s surface so by logical and rational thinking, a lot of the flood waters stayed on top of the Earth. We have no record of any of the waters flying back into the air and escaping through the windows of heaven and if we proposed such an idea, most of the supporters would probably be thrown into the loony bin and the key thrown away. So with sanity prevailing, our only option to explain the existence of glaciers and sunken cities is that some of the flood waters remained on earth and changed the geography.
#2. On a final point, let us remember that the most recent ice age was merely one of dozens over the past few million years
That statement is very difficult to prove true. I still find it hard to believe, and I do not, that secular scientists think that they can discover and read physical evidence millions of years old yet are unable to find physical evidence for ancient life from a scant 2,000 years ago. Secular science is not that good.
#3. Despite Mr. Thomas’s optimism and confidence, Flood geology provides no answers to the mysterious ice ages—only a new set of problems, which defy the laws of physics.
According to him flood geology presents no answers but in reality, secular science, which is not in the business of providing answers, only creates new problems which defy logic and physics. One of the problems, as mentioned, is this cycle theory of ice ages and warm climates. Their evidence cold easily be confused with normal life
These climate oscillations are evidenced especially well by long-term records of pollen, for example, which document the regrowth and recovery of warm-weather trees, herbs, and grasses between episodes of frozen tundra
Are they sure they are not just tracking the four seasons? Given secular science’s obsession with assumption, I highly doubt their conclusions using these items to track weather patterns from millions of years ago.The world would have to be in an ideal state for a very long time to even discover such records. But wait, their theories of evolution and the Big Bang present the secularist with an ideal history which magically fits their version of the evidence they discover. The problem for this ideal history is, it can’t be verified. They are modern constructs created by people who reject the truth and want an alternative to the biblical record.
In other words, modern unbelievers do not like the truth so they change it drastically then distort the physical evidence to fit their changes. They are not describing what actually took place but fleshing out their theories to willfully deceive themselves because they do not want God or the Bible to be true. If the secularist points to modern science and its experiments on weather patterns, climate etc. just remember that secular science is only monitoring weather and climate evidence that came into existence after the flood. There is nothing from the previous world to compare their notes with.
So, in answer to the question above, Yes the biblical flood explains the ice age because it demonstrates that the ice age idea is just another lie from unbelievers and shows that it never existed. The ice came from the left over waters of Noah’s flood.
theologyarchaeology 
#1. Except you cannot falsify that claim that the flood was the source of the water for the glaciers. Everything you described can be done by a global flood. The problem is no one wants to replicate a global flood to find out.
I dismiss any form of science that does not adhere to biblical rules and which produce lies. Why? because they are not after the truth. Your comment proves you do not have evidence but it is the typical response of all those who take secular science over God.
#2. Predictions are meaningless. They do not eliminate other sources from producing the results under examination. You make itsound like the bees and agricultural plants got together and decided to work together. All you are doing is reading into what you are studying and have no external non-modern scientific record to help you judge what you have found. Also, those corroborative efforts are based upon assumption not fact.
You can’t eliminate the flood because you do not know the climate of the pre-flood world nor the tempature of all its waters. Plus you woul dnot know the tempature of the waters from the windos of heaven or that of the waters coming from beneath the surface of the earth.
#3. Are you saying that God creating the amount of water we know exists is complete nonsense while the idea of enough meteors bringing millions of cubic miles of liquid to the earth is not? Is that your point?
In other words you do not know the source of the water, how much was given to the earth and you cannot pinpoint the source for the construction of the evaporation/rain cycle.The Bible has those answers. God created the water and the amount and he constructed the evaporation/rain cycle.
Now how is science better than the Bible?
#4. Or are you afraid to admit that your scientific way may construct a water supply well short of what was needed to form the glaciers and provide enough area to house the millionsof living things in the ocean waters while watering the lands enabling humans to grow food?
#5. There is no hinting in the Bible about the connection. There is also no hinting of the Bible about an ice age. if you read Genesis one you will see that waters covered the earth not ice. In making the connection one just has to do the math and put 2 and 2 together with the help of the Holy Spirit.
Plus I am NOT hinting that the flood caused an ice age. Don’t twist my words. I said that the glaciers were formed from the left over water from Noah’s flood. I said nothing about the flood causing an ice age.
#6. Calling me a liar and say that I am lying on my own forum is not a smart thing to do nor is it anyway to conduct a discussion. let’s be clear where in the Bible does God say there was an ice age and he used a process to develop life? Where in the bible does it say to follow the thinking of sinful secular ungodly people? Where in the Bible does it say to ignore what Moses wrote in favor of secular people’s ideologies and altenratives?
Where have I said that the Bible is a simple textbook? Who are these supposedly godly men? Do you not think that the intelligence God has given everyone is better suited and used for believing God an dhis word not believing sinful fallible man who does not believe God?
I will await your answers to those questions then close the discussion. it is clear you can only insult not discuss.
#7. I didn’t miss your point, I just directed you to a better method and direction to use. we do not need those secular research feilds or secular thought to do any of that. You are misguided in thinking that blind unbelieving people can shed light on anything holy and supernatural.
#8. You seem to be describing yourself as you are the one going to the insult and to the absurd. Anyone who would take the idea of a gang of meteors providing water to the earth over God creating it by speaking can’t discuss intelligently nor can they be open-minded about other people’s point of view.
I gave you an invitation to present your side, via a whole article, honestly, without insult, personal attacks with legitimate links to crebible sources and it was you who declined not me. Don’t make me responsible for your failure to accept the invitation.
But your comments are par for the course for those who do not believe God. if you believed God you would have the faith to know that he created the water for all situations and that there woul dnot be enough meteors to bring the water to the earth.
Numbers are good..
1. Science is a method by which we falsify claims, such as the claim you made regarding the ice ages. The confirmation that massive glaciers once covered the northern continents is found in the form of striated bedrock, sedimentary tills filled with finely ground clay, bulldozed topographies, U-shaped valleys, stable-isotope trends in ice cores, marine sediments, and lake cores. As an example:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379198000766
But it seems you dismiss any form of science, so I don’t see much of a point in directing you to evidences of any kind.
2. Sure, we can verify them by making predictions about corroboratory evidence. We might start with plant pollen, but then we can test any intrinsic assumptions by finding other records that disprove or support our claim. If they support it, then the assumptions are verified. As it turns out, we *can* eliminate the flood as a source, because the glacial ice still remaining today (e.g. in Greenland/Antarctica, or even the high Alps) bears an isotopic signature of snowfall evaporated from the oceans in a much colder climate than today.
3. Since when? Geologists have long known the answer to this: the oceans were derived primarily from comets and other extraterrestrial sources, whereas the degassing mantle provided the rest. You say, “You also cannot explain the source for the evaporation/rain cycle an dhow it remains consistant year after year for thousands of years. The Bible does have the answers,” but this is complete nonsense. I don’t feel obligated to provide an elementary education in geography, because it is available in many places online.
4. Nope, you’re still writing nonsense—I haven’t a clue what you’re saying!
5. You’re the one that claimed that I am scoffing at God’s word by rejecting that Noah’s flood caused an ice age. So tell me, where does the Bible even hint at this connection? If it does not, then I can reject the speculation without forming any conflict with scripture.
6. Again, I’m not saying that Genesis is wrong; I’m saying that you’re wrong about Genesis. Since you are wrong about Genesis, you are lying about what God has said. Haven’t you considered that you are deceived and corrupted by sin? It is evident in the contradictions between scripture and your false claims. Why do you expect me to ignore what godly men have learned about God and his creation in favor of your irreverent approach to the words of the Holy Spirit? You make the Bible into something it never claims to be—a simple textbook that excuses you from pursuing proper knowledge. As for me, I will not insult the wisdom that God has bestowed upon mankind, which allows us to know him all the better through that which was made and that which was spoken long ago.
7. See, you missed my point entirely, again, and merely begged the question.
8. I’m satisfied with my conclusion that you cannot carry out this dialogue with any profundity. I’m sorry, but if you’re so eager to hold your hands over your eyes and ears as you speak, then I feel I’m better off spending my time elsewhere.
“I did not grow up in Palestine during the 2nd millennium B.C., and I’m willing to bet that neither did you. But I see you’d prefer to oversimplify what it takes to read ancient literature, so I won’t bother pressing the point. I’ve said what is necessary.”
I know you didn’t. The point I am making is that you cannot separate the biblical message to fit the target audience you want. God wrote the Bible to carying the same message to all people. God’s word does not change because technology or scientific theories have changed.
What God wrote through Moses for the people of Israel he intended to say to all subsequent people who have come into existence since that time. This means that science does not get to tchange our origins simply because they think they can create an alternative and twist the physical evidence to supposedly support that non-existent alternative.
True and false teaching applies to science, archaeology, geology as well as physics, anthropology and other scinetific research fields. Until you apply that part of the Bible to your scientific support you won’t find the truth and you will always be considered wrong and off the mark.
Oh and I am not over-simplifying reading ancinet literature. Following the Holy Spirit leads us to the correct way of reading ancient literature.
I did not grow up in Palestine during the 2nd millennium B.C., and I’m willing to bet that neither did you. But I see you’d prefer to oversimplify what it takes to read ancient literature, so I won’t bother pressing the point. I’ve said what is necessary.
I edited your comment to add numbers for clarity sake.
#1. The only people who claim an ice age took place ar emodern scientists. They have no historical confirmation of their theories. The Bible doesn’t have to mention ice ages because they never took place. Science is not infallible nor does it always tell the truth. There is such a thing as true and false science. I would question the science first before dismissing the Bible considering the source of the science.
#2. Thos proxies are based upon asusmption and cannot be verified even though you claim they are accurate. You can’t tell that they are accurate or not. Going back through layers is based upon the asumption that those layers were laid down according to modern scientific thinking.
You can’t verify that they were nor can you eliminate the flood from being the source of the water needed for those ice layers.
#3. Except one problem– you do not have a source for the original water that formed the oceans. Where did the water come from originally and what caused it to supply this world with enough liquid to create glaciers as well as oceans, rivers and lakes?
You and those intro textbooks do not provide an answer. You also cannot explain the source for the evaporation/rain cycle an dhow it remains consistant year after year for thousands of years. The Bible does have the answers.
#4. In other words, there is a limited supply of water and since the glaciers retained the water used to form them, that supply would be a lot less than we see today. The supply would be used up. You are assuming the supply was larger than it may have been but outside of God an his creativ eact you have no source for the original supply of water to use in forming glaciers andyou have no idea howmuch was brought to this earth.
#5. it is right next to the passage describing how secular science and unbelieving scientists know the truth over God and his word. 🙂 I guess you do not exist because God did not specifically mention you in the Bible.
#6. I am not bearing false witness against you, i am telling you to your face that you do not believe God and you don’t. i am ttelling the truth. Believing God means believing Genesis as written. You have no divinely inspired verifiable alternative scripture to say Genesis is wrong.
You do not have a historical record of divine manuscripts presenting this alternative and showin ghow the ible is in error. You are using secular science to make your claim and where in the Bible do you have permission from God to take secular science over his word?
The Bible doesn’t contradict anything I have said. The only person who is doing the contradiction is you and you are using secular sources, ungodly sources, unbelieving thought as evidence to support your contradiction. I am using God and his word following his guidance through the evidence we have. Do you see the difference? You are not using God or any of his material but appeal to unbelieving osurces for help and God said in the Bible not to do that.
God has drawn the protrait of ‘secular science’. He has defined what is of him and what is not. How do you expect unbelieving scientists who are blind and deceived because they have not repented of their sins and been freed from the grasp of evil to be able to ind the truth over those people who have repented of their sins, been freed from th grasp of evil and follow the Holy Spirit to the truth.
You are saying unbeieving humans know better than God.You do not belive God, you believe scientists over him.
#7. Yes we can because the Bible tells us we can. John 14 and 16 explains it all. You also forget that those fields of study are not immune from sin and corruption so they are not the best tools to use in detemring anything God has said or recorded. You also insult the Holy Spirit Jesus and God with that type of thinking.
#8. You are still welcome to write a rebuttal but I hope you do it in a manner that avoids misunderstanding anything you say. By rebuttal I mean a full length discussion so you can flesh out your points so you are satisfied with what you say.
Yes we do share our land and lifetime with them and the author. Since Genesis was written the geography has not changed so all the land is the same. Then the author’s words still exist and we read them so we do share our lives with his words. They are applicable for today as they were when they were first penned in human form.
So you have scientific evidence verifying the writings of the original Israeli audience and can identify them scientifically even though they all died in the wilderness during their 40 year wandering.
if you say that Genesis was written in the 5th-7th centuries BC then you are not talking about the supposed original audience and they may not have known those landmarks. You would also have no evidence for such a late authorship.
Did you ever think you were wrong? People can draw analogies all they want to and they can draw the same analogy but since you appealed to scripture in another response, where is your biblical passage that says you got it correct?
The temple is not the source of spiritual life either. it was a central location God chose to perform certain rites he wanted performed. Spiritual life comes from belieiving and following God not by going to the temple. many unbelievers went to the temple and they did not have spiritual life given to them by their attendance. (see the story of the moneychangers for evidence)
Then you have to understand that the river in Eden was NOT the only river created by God or in existence at that time. That river came from outside the garden so the analogy fails.
No, we are not the original audience of Genesis, because we did not share our land/lifetime with the author. How do we know whether those ancient readers know about these landmarks? Because they wrote about them! Simple as that. 🙂
I’m sorry, I would love to interact, but all I hear is “You’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong.” I’m not the only person to note the relationship between the Garden and God’s temple. It matters not whether God communicated with mankind outside of the garden/temple. The analogy stands still.
1. First of all—and perhaps most importantly—I am a believer, so it would be helpful if you stop drawing a false dichotomy between yourself and unbelievers (arbitrarily defined as those who disagree with yourself). So what kind of “ancient historical confirmation” do you really have? The Bible? It gives no clues as to whether an ice age took place, how long ago that was, or anything regarding the age of the Earth. It tells you nothing of what you seek to prove here. So yes, you are left doing nothing more than speculating about what you think the evidence might be.
“You have no proof that those extra years took place. you assume that the snow started from scratch yet can’t prove that true.”
2. There are numerous proxies for dating events beyond written chronologies, and all are far more accurate. And no, we don’t simply assume the “snow started from scratch” (an odd way of phrasing it). As I mentioned, we can sort back through layers that indicate no glacial ice was present prior to the last ice age. These localities contain abundant warm-climate fossils that couldn’t flourish in the presence of glacial ice. It’s a rather simple approach that is corroborated abundantly across the northern hemisphere.
“As for sunken cities and sea levels, where did the water come from if not from Noah’s flood? how did the glaciers form without extra water and where was it stored? no scientist I know of has answered those questions yet.”
3. The water came from the ice sheets that once covered northern Russia, Scandinavia, and much of North America. When they melted, sea level rose sufficiently to cover those cities and settlements now beneath the ocean. The glaciers formed from water in the ocean, which explains why sea level dropped as the glaciers began to form. Now you know of one scientist who has answered that question, though I am not the first. You need only read an introductory textbook on geology or any related field to find others.
“They think it only snowed but snow is frozen water and if it didn’t melt then there would not be enough water to do evaporation to produce snow.”
4. This makes absolutely no sense.
“Yes you don’t want the Bible to be true. if you did, you would not be scoffing at Noah’s flood as the source for the glaciers.”
5. Show me the verse that indicates massive continental glaciers formed after Noah’s flood. Then I’ll remind you that Noah’s flood occurred long after the last ice age ended.
“if you do not believe Genesis then you are not a believer now are you? You are saying God lied or God’s writers didn’t tell the truth. Think about the ramificationsof that viewpoint.”
6. There is no need to bear false witness against me. Our disagreement has nothing to do with whether God or any biblical author lied. It derives from the fact that you cannot skillfully read the Bible. I am a believer, and this should be obvious on what I’ve written of Genesis. I understand that you’re not comfortable with the notion that the Bible contradicts much of what you say, and so you cannot accept the idea that I am a believer. But you can’t make that go away by drawing false portraits of “secular science” and pitting everyone else against you.
“When you are talking about biblical events secular science is not the rule maker nor the correct tool to use to find the answers to the question.”
7. You can’t even understand what the Bible says without using the methods of so-called secular science. You can’t translate the text or its meaning without linguistics; you can’t recover the ancient records that became our modern Bible without archaeology; and you can’t interpret its stories without literary analysis. Neither can you elucidate its historical referents without historical sciences such as geology.
it is not speculation. Believers have something secular scientists do not have–ancient historical confirmation and evidence.
But you cannot explain how the snow accumulated without adding thousands or millions of years to life. You have no proof that those extra years took place. you assume that the snow started from scratch yet can’t prove that true.
As for sunken cities and sea levels, where did the water come from if not from Noah’s flood? how did the glaciers form without extra water and where was it stored? no scientist I know of has answered those questions yet. They think it only snowed but snow is frozen water and if it didn’t melt then there would not be enough water to do evaporation to produce snow.
Predictions mean nothing when you can study something and manipulate the results.
Yes you don’t want the Bible to be true. if you did, you would not be scoffing at Noah’s flood as the source for the glaciers. You would be asking far different questions and making vastly different comments.
I didn’t lie. if you do not believe Genesis then you are not a believer now are you? You are saying God lied or God’s writers didn’t tell the truth. Think about the ramificationsof that viewpoint.
Again, I wasn’t really addressing your article. i was addressing your question. Then you assume I do not know how science works when in reality I do. That is why I wasn’t addressing your argument. Secular science is not geared nor designed to produce answers or the truth so why would I use a faulty research field to present the truth and the answers?
When you are talking about biblical events secular science is not the rule maker nor the correct tool to use to find the answers to the question.
I really wasn’t addressing your point. First i was answering your main question and then saw some comments that would cause som econfusion and cleared those issues up.
as for rivers, even the modern world view them as a ‘source’ for life but keep in mind you can play semantics with the word ‘source’. You also do not understand anything aout the tree of life nor wy God banned access to it.
your analogy using the temple doesn’t work because God communicated with Adam, Eve, and Cain, along with Enoch and others OUTSIDE of the garden. The temple was not the source of spiritual life nor was Eden.
Just so you know, all the people of the world both past and present are the original audience. there is no way of telling if the ancient readers knew those land marks or not.
Your discussion of ice ages, on the other hand, makes no sense whatsoever. First, you claim that scientists can only speculate about the details of ice ages, and then you go on to do nothing more than speculate about its origins in residual waters from the flood:
“…what really explains the existence of the glaciers is Noah’s flood. That is the only credible source for that amount of water to be locked into certain regions.”
I can’t even fathom how this helps to explain the formation of continental ice sheets. This is the least credible source for that amount of water to be locked up on land. We know well how ice sheets form, because we can observe it today: snow accumulates in a region where the average annual temperature remains below zero. It’s quite simple and requires no speculation.
“These [sunken] cities are far enough from modern shores to thwart any rising ocean water theory that the secular world may champion.”
By “rising ocean water” theory, perhaps you’re referring to the fact that sea level changes in response to how much ice is locked up on land? I’m really not sure how the existence of sunken cities “thwarts” this well established principle. On the contrary, it makes perfect sense that cities were established on the coastline prior to ~8,000 years ago, and then they were submerged when sea level rose to modern levels. When ice ages end and all the ice melts, the sea level rises—no mystery there!
“One of the problems, as mentioned, is this cycle theory of ice ages and warm climates.”
This is a problem that defies physics? That’s news to me! Especially since it was predicted long ago (solely on the basis of physics) that Earth’s climate should oscillate in cycles over long periods of time.
“Are they sure they are not just tracking the four seasons?”
Yup! Most certain.
“In other words, modern unbelievers do not like the truth so they change it drastically then distort the physical evidence to fit their changes. They are not describing what actually took place but fleshing out their theories to willfully deceive themselves because they do not want God or the Bible to be true.”
I don’t want God or the Bible to be true? Also news to me, and the accusation seems a little silly, given that I devoted my time elaborating messages from the Eden narrative. You’ve drawn a false dichotomy (‘us’ vs. ‘them’), because it makes it easier to reject any contrary opinions—but it remains false.
“Yes the biblical flood explains the ice age because it demonstrates that the ice age idea is just another lie from unbelievers and shows that it never existed. The ice came from the left over waters of Noah’s flood.”
And you end your comments with another contradiction: the ice age is a lie; the ice age was formed by waters from Noah’s flood. Presumably, anyone that rejects your modern, anachronistic view of the Bible is an ‘unbeliever’, because the geologists that recognized the existence of past ice ages and provided evidence for them were largely believers. So in conclusion, you haven’t dealt with the evidence for ice ages, and you never really addressed the point of my article. You’ve only demonstrated that you understand not how science works in the first place, how it does more than speculate, and how it verifies past events with corroboratory evidence found in the present.
I appreciate your comments, but I fear you have missed the point entirely of my article on Eden (this is evident from the way you quoted it). In so doing, you never answered the main question: why does Genesis describe Eden, its rivers, and adjacent lands using geographical referents so well known to the original audience? If you answer this question, then you unlock the richest message of the Eden narrative. To dismiss the question (as you have done) and say, “Well, we don’t know. It was destroyed by a flood and we have no real markers, so we just have our faith.” leaves one with only a very shallow reading of the text. As an example you say:
“This is just not true. God is portrayed as the source of all life on Earth not the garden of Eden… The garden of Eden was the source for the original sin as well BUT it was never portrayed as the source of life.”
Do you really see me as denying that God is the source of all life on Earth, simply by noting the symbolism of four rivers flowing out of Eden to water all the lands of the Earth? Eden was to be the place where God walked and communed with mankind, and so it functioned like the temple in Jerusalem. To say the temple was the source of spiritual life simultaneously means that the God who dwells there is the source of spiritual life. And so it was with Eden.
I’m not sure why its unclear that Eden is portrayed as the source of all life on Earth. Especially in the ancient Near East, rivers were deemed the main life source, divinely gifted. Furthermore, Eden contained the tree of life, and God banished mankind to bar his access thereto.
“He won’t lie to us so we do not need to waste time and money searching for things that no longer exist.”
Yes, this was my main point: the description of Eden and its rivers provides no real geographical clues to its location, so it’s a waste of time to search for it.